United States District Court, District of South Carolina, Aiken Division
PAIGE J. GOSSETT, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Plaintiff Eric Alan Sanders, a self-represented litigant, filed this civil action alleging violations of his constitutional rights. This matter is before the court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.) on multiple discovery motions. (ECF Nos. 41, 42, & 43). Additionally, the defendant filed a motion to stay or amend the Scheduling Order. (ECF No. 48.)
In his first motion, Sanders appears to request subpoenas duces tecum to obtain documents from approximately thirty non-parties. (ECF No. 41.) The court must limit a plaintiff’s discovery requests if the documents sought from the non-party are “cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.” See Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(2)(C); see also Badman v. Stark, 139 F.R.D. 601, 605 (M.D. Pa. 1991) (“The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were not intended to burden a non-party with a duty to suffer excessive or unusual expenses in order to comply with a subpoena duces tecum.”). In its response to Sanders’s motion, the defendant argues that the proposed subpoenas are unnecessary, as any documents relating to Sanders’s employment would be available from the defendant. (See ECF No. 44.) The defendant also notes that Sanders has not directed any written discovery requests to it. (Id. at 1 n.1.) Accordingly, as it appears that the discovery Sanders seeks is available from a source that is more convenient and less burdensome, his motion for subpoenas duces tecum is denied.
Sanders also appears to seek protection from having to respond to the defendant’s discovery requests. (ECF No. 42.) The defendant seeks to compel Sanders to respond to these requests. (ECF No. 43.) As Sanders has not shown good cause to warrant the issuance of a protective order, Sanders’s motion is denied and the defendant’s motion is granted. Sanders is hereby directed to fully respond to the defendant’s discovery requests on or before May 15, 2015. Failure to comply may result in sanctions, including but not limited to dismissal of the Complaint pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
In light of the additional time granted to Sanders to respond to the defendant’s discovery requests, the defendant’s motion to amend (ECF No. 48) is granted in part and the remaining deadlines established by the court’s Scheduling Order (ECF No. 37) are hereby amended as follows:
5. Discovery shall be completed no later than June 8, 2015. All discovery requests, including subpoenas duces tecum, shall be served in time for the responses thereto to be served by this date. De bene esse depositions must be completed by discovery deadline. No motions relating to discovery shall be filed until parties have consulted and attempted to resolve the matter as required by Local Civil Rule 7.02 DSC.
6. All other motions, except those to complete discovery, those nonwaivable motions made pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12 and those relating to the admissibility of evidence at trial, shall be filed on or before June 22, 2015. (Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(2)).
7. Mediation, pursuant to Local Civil Rules 16.04 - 16.12, shall be completed in this case on or before July 22, 2015. See form setting forth mediation requirements. At least thirty (30) days prior to this mediation deadline, counsel for each party shall file and serve a statement certifying that counsel has: (1) provided the party with a copy of the mediation requirements; (2) discussed the availability of mediation with the party; and (3) discussed the timing of mediation with opposing counsel. If the ...